Last night during craft night we tried to watch "Queer Eye for the Straight Girl". I was pretty much done when I found out that there was only one lesbian on the "change your life into what we think it should be" team. Just what does that say other than "we don't think lesbians are television-worthy" or something. Ugh.

Recent advice I have given: "I have had my unending success with crushes by not letting them sit around and acting directly on them as soon as possible with no regard to the consequences. This is my advice on future crushes!" Caveat: unless the consequences involve anyone cheating on anyone, TYVM.

Argh! This reminded me of an ongoing discussion on one of the lists I'm on. So I'm going to tell you about it, since the list is stupidly argumentative about it.

Basically, one of the first shows featured a woman who said she wore an 18. They took her to Banana Republic and gave her diet tips. Someone on the list who saw the show (which I didn't) thought that a) diet tips might not be appropriate, given she didn't seem interested in dieting and b) that they couldn't have possibly found her clothes in Banana Republic, because the store caters to smaller sizes. The list erupted with "I saw that show, and she's not an 18" (I love how people talk like women ARE a size; the same so rarely applies to men) and "but she WANTED diet tips, how dare you complain" (this is on a size acceptance list, mind you) and other B.S.

I believe this wouldn't happen if the show were more lesbian and less "gay guy". I don't know if it's a result of the whole political situation of being gay and a woman, or if lesbians are just more evolved as a group, or if this is totally stereotype on my part, but I feel like that woman would have gotten better advice if it weren't from gay guys playing to stereotype.

The show I watched last night was a woman who had been anorexic/bulimic and was recovered, and looked very comfortable with her own body (I think they mentioned something about her size at some point, I can't remember for sure because again, stopped paying attention at 1 lesbian, not that one gender needs to teach its own... both shows should have lesbians!!!!) and they didn't say one thing that I noticed about dieting. They said that she was trying to eat healthy but that on this special occasion they'd teach her to make this dessert thing. That part was actually not so bad, fo real.

Fuck a bunch of Banana Republic. I like the styles but not the sizeism. I don't think you can buy a freaking size 8 there, let alone 18.

But at no point on QEftSG do they hand out /diet/ tips; they alter the wardrobe to better suit, but they never say 'you're a bad person, you're physically bad, you suck for not doing x'. They don't take them to the gym. They find positives to enlarge on, encourage, build confidence, focus on the quirks and character traits of the person to make them shine. They don't isolate the problems, point them out, dwell on them, and tell the person to fix them later. What I like about QEftSG is that its attitude is so positive.

I think there are a few reasons for only one woman on the team, and they have very little to do with gender issues. First off, they reduced the number of the team members from five to four (and incidentally stopped hiding the team of helpers). So there's one less slot into which a woman could step. Secondly, they redefined the roles so that each team member isn't necessarily shoehorned into a task that may not actually be all that important for the "straight girl" at hand (how many times has Jai or Ted had to REALLY REALLY stretch to find something to do?). Both of these are, I think, GOOD tweaks to the format. The third reason is brand consistency: the show needs to feel like QE, and part of the feel that made the original a success was the campy companionship of the guys. Too many women would of necessity change that relationship, which (in TV land) is a very very dangerous thing to do. Adding only one woman allows them to have someone who understands the victim better without changing the overall QE group dynamic. We'll see how this goes long term as the show develops its own identity.

So that is my humble take on why there's only one woman in the Gal Pals (although I want to shoot whoever decided on the name).

Side note: it is kind of cool to see them shopping at places I go all the time.... :)

So, basically what you're saying is that TV is sexist and that's just how it is? I don't understand. What you are saying reads to me like, "lesbians can't have televisable campy companionship"? Redefining the roles has really nothing to do with whether they "cast" a gay man, a lesbian, or anything in between (bisexuals are way too bleeding edge for TV, fer sher!) for the roles...

I mean, I guess what I'm saying is that I certainly get why they did it. I mean, this is TV I'm watching! It's still a big middle-finger to a whole slew of viewership, as far as I'm concerned.

It's funny you should mention the role changes as being good... tzel and I were sitting around dissing how the new roles were too vague and lame. :)

No, I'm saying that QE had a "chemistry" and they're loathe to change it. If you think that the original QE was sexist, then I guess I have no leg to stand on, but what I'm saying is that lesbian companionship would be different than male companionship, and different==bad as far as TV execs are concerned when you're working with an established brand. Bravo has thrown all kinds of reality shows up against the metaphorical wall, and QE is really the only one that has stuck. They need to make the new one a little different, but the core Brand Recognition has to be the same.

As to the other: redefining the roles DOES give "the lady" the opportunity to have a voice in everything rather than shunting her off to just "food" or "clothes" or some other predefined role, and from what I've seen, the woman they chose is literate in an awful lot, so I thought that was good. I thought they'd be lame, too, but in practice I've liked them so far.

Part of the appeal of some TV, say, Friends or Cheers, is fantasy-fulfillment: this is a social group that welcomes you. Isn't it?

I always figured that part of the original Queer Eye's appeal was, to its straight female audience members, fantasy-based: "Since the good ones are taken/gay, I want a team of fabulous and witty gay friends to remake my man into a more sensitive and appealing guy!"

I saw Straight Girl ads and thought, hey, they've just boiled it down a bit: "I want a team of gay friends!"